THE ACIT,SABARKANTHA CIRCLE, HIMATNAGAR vs. M/S. SONATA CERAMICS PVT.LTD., HIMATNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 733/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 November 2019AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of a previous order by the ITAT in the assessee's own case which had also set aside the matter for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of an addition of Rs. 58,55,444/- made on account of suppression of sales price. The addition was based on findings from Excise proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for suppression of sales price. Whether the matter should be remitted for fresh adjudication based on prior tribunal orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘’ B’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R, Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar
Hearing: 23/09/2021Pronounced: 29/09/2021

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad, dated 22/01/2015 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2008-2009.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.58,55.444/- made on account of suppression of sales price by taking GP on accounted cash 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing officer.

3.

It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent.

3. The only issue raised by the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO for Rs. 58,55,444/- out of the total addition of Rs. 79,88,328/- on account of suppression of sales price.

4.

At the outset, the Ld. AR at the time of hearing brought to our notice that the additions were made by the AO for Rs. 79,88,328/- on the basis of the findings in the course of Excise proceedings. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(A) on appeal reduced the addition to Rs. 21,32,884/- .

5.

Against the findings of Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals before the ITAT.

6. The ITAT in the appeal preferred by the assessee bearing vide order dated 16/11/2018 set-aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after making reference to the order of this Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07.

7.

Accordingly, the Ld. AR requested the Bench to remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue in accordance with law as the cross appeal of the assessee has already been remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) by the order of the ITAT as discussed above.

8.

The Ld. DR did not raise any objection on the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee but vehemently supported the order of the authorities below.

9.

We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the cross appeal preferred by the assessee has already been set-aside by the order of this Tribunal in for the Assessment Year 2008-09 vide order dated 16/11/2018. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:

5. When this appeal was taken up for hearing on merits, it was pointed out that the impugned additions were made on the basis of findings in the course of Excise Proceedings and that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 has remitted the matter to the file of the CIT(A), in that assessment years, for fresh adjudication in the light of final outcome in the Excise Proceedings based on which the present additions were made. We are urged to follow the same approach and remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of final outcome of the proceedings in the excise matter. Learned Departmental Representative did not seriously dispute the prayer of the learned Counsel for the assessee, but merely placed reliance on the stand of the authorities below.

6.

Respectfully following the Co-ordinate Bench decision in assessee's own case for assessment years 2005-06 & 2006-07 (ITA Nos. 2076/Ahd/2012 & 2077/Ahd/2012, order dated 01.03.2016), we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for re-adjudication in the light of final outcome in the excise proceedings in assessee’s case. Ordered, accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 16th November, 2018.

9.1 The issue raised in the present appeal is connected with the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal in which has been set-aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the manner as discussed above. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appeal on hand should also be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law. Accordingly, we hold so. Thus, the ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose in terms of above.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for the statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Court on 29/09/2021 at Ahmedabad.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →